Thread: Parents with daughters. Miss Bimbo.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

yes, anon. very much so - on every level.

i enjoy the discussion - but i do find that arguing with you is not different from arguing with a 16 year old, except that you are decidedly more articulate than most.

the whole "i can't tell you what to do" ideaology is childish. if you're ok with someone sitting at home watching virtual depictions of infant abuse - and the inevitable danger associated with that kind of behavior isn't compelling to you -

Woo for me, I'm articulate. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who believes in an anarchic or lawless government is childish? And somehow incapable of forming their opinion beyond rebelling against their parents? I think that you're trying to act patronizing to somehow lend credibility to your case, yet you keep exposing your own misunderstandings and predjudices.

As for the inevitable danger of someone watching a virtual porn - are you blissfully unaware of the existance of films whose contents break practically all the laws there are? Violence, murder, theft, drug use and trafficking, rape etc. - Many of which are deemed to have artistic merit. By your rationale someone who watched the new Rambo film would be in danger of murdering lots of innocent people. Someone who watched Oceans 11 would be in serious risk of robbing a casino. Someone who watched Layer Cake could be setting up an international cocaine smuggling organisation. I suppose all of those need to be banned too?

Originally Posted by whilhelm

I never said you used Hitler as an example, but as an analogy, believe it or not I know the difference.

Whilhelm, I can't help but smirk to myself when people draw upon Hitler as an example to prove their point about something.

maybe i misread your two statements here. or maybe you're confused. my bet's on the latter.

Ooh, syntax eh? It's an interesting one. Spend a little more time pointing out minor irrelevent flaws and maybe you can detract the point from your failing argument.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

You just have to go for the worst, the holocaust, to create that mental link of negativity.

if i would have known this would be such a stumbling block, i would have used something else. like, how about the inquisition? or the salem witch hunts?

truth is nazi, germany is a perfect illustration of how the media (that is, organized communication) can be used to control behavior - which was the subject of my original proposition. better than any other i can think of, but i'm no historian.

My point, if you'd care to remember, was that you said you weren't trying to imbue negative connotations to the thing by comparing it to Nazis, and then you still compare to other negatives, instead of things just being the way they are. I won't disagree that Nazi's influence the way people think through the media, just that every culture on earth has always done this and always will.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

we all know that people are a combination of their genes and their upbringing/culture.

i would think so. if we agree on this point, and i also understand you to be opposed to any regulations or impositions that would influence that culture -

i can only conclude that you don't care if the culture that "creates" us is characterized by negative influence.

Personally, I think a culture with only positive influence is somewhat missing the point. No sort of enlightenment can be achieved in a sterile environment created to keep you naive. You might be a happy simple little robot, but your capacity for serious thought would be questionable. I believe in freedom over a few bad eggs. To liken this to the current "war on terror", I believe there is a relevent quote:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Originally Posted by whilhelm

saying that humanity has always been ridden with rape, murder, and oppression is a cop-out, anon.

You have basically been saying that pornography means that little children get traded in car boots. I was saying that before pornography, this has always been happening, so your quest against it is misguided - you're issue is with human behaviour itself.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

the same responsibility you (rightly) lay at the feet of parents also lies at your own feet. we share the responsibilit to, if i can borrow your words - teach our children our code of morality.

Yeah, so you can teach your children about not having any fun, the limits placed on them, what they can and cannot experience, which of their freedoms aren't actually that important, and to adopt your christian (or christian influenced) set of morals. I'll teach mine to be strong moral characters for themselves, who are able to tell right from wrong themselves without being force fed it.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

advocating for porn that depicts things that are illegal - while advocating for the prosecution of those crimes is an amazing hypocrisy.

Once again you are talking absolute rubbish, I advocate the legality of a film in which somebody is murdered. It is absolutely not hypocritical to still prosecute someone for murdering someone. You really seem to have difficuly separating fantasy from reality.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

not surprising for me, though. i find that hypocrisy is at the heart of anyone's interest in/consumption of porn. i have yet to meet a porn user who wants his/her daughter to do porn.

I wouldn't want my daughter to be a porn star, just like I wouldn't want her to be an admin office worker. In both cases she'd be capable of more.The fact that clearing out the trash isn't the best job out there doesn't mean that it's morally detestable. Working in porn is like clearing out the garbage but part time with a shedload more money.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

similarly, let me cry out against the evil of child molestation, demand the swift administration of justice for those who perpetrate sex crimes...

Why are you still going on about this? Nobody has ever claimed differently. You're campaigning where there's no reason to. EVERYBODY AGREES THAT PAEDOS AND RAPISTS SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

but defend anyone's right to use porn that depicts those crimes.

PORN ISN'T REAL FFS!

Originally Posted by whilhelm

why not hand me a box of twinkies while i'm on the treadmill & b*tch at me about my weight.

convoluted, at best.

Your comparisons are never dead on are they? It'd be "why not watch a chocolate cake cooking programme while you're on the treadmill and at you about your weight.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

we seem to agree that people are influenced by culture to do bad things. you just don't think we should do anything about it.

I don't think the fact that some peope are really dumb should define and blunt our society as a whole. You think that teenage mutant hero turtles shouldn't be on TV since kids might fight each other.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

that's fine, anon. you've adopted the "don't bother me & i won't bother you" attitude. unfortunately, the guys who get off on watching infants & toddlers being raped don't operate that way.

Aw, you love aiming for emotional hit points don't you. Anyway, to be honest, if a couple of people have to pay the price for our freedom then so be it. It's not like I'm not still up for the hunting down and prosecution of everyone who harms someone else. So you can pretend I'm immoral all you want.

Originally Posted by whilhelm

fortunately, though, there were folks in the history of my country who believed a little differently - otherwise i'd be speaking german today.

AAHAHAHAHAAHAHA. What? You believe differently - after years of war and the Japanese dive bombed your precious harbour? Then you came in and saved our limey behinds right? You know, you shouldn't base your war history off "Saving Private Ryan" (another film that by your rationale should be banned).

Originally Posted by whilhelm

I believe in personal freedom to the highest level - to the point of a structured anarchic state (slight oxymoron).

silly. there's no such thing as a slight oxymoron. it is or isn't. structured anarchy is NOT anarchy. you're just revealing more of the hypocrisy. you want anarchy to allow you to move the way you want to - and structure to make sure nobdy moves in a way that hurts you.

You like to get bogged down in details, even when you're wrong.

Anarchy: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

I was simplifying it for you, as most people read anarchy as completely lack of structure in a society, which would obviously mean you'd have to farm your own food etc. which isn't the case. So instead of me revealing my hypocracy, you're revealing your ignorance. But if you really want to get wrapped up in the term "slight oxymoron" then that's up to you - you've been more than willing to involve yourself in other syntactic nonsense already (usually the sign of a desperate argument).

Originally Posted by whilhelm

as i've told you before - people have sought this for centuries. people like to create their own rules & then call them "reality."

What you are saying is that you favour the christian conditioning over todays sensationalising conditioning, and that is an entirely subjective moral opinion.

when did i bring christianity into this. if you mean to say that i favor a world in which we don't allow people to film rape & glorify it as a masturbatory tool...

then i guess you're right.

did you mean that?

You never explicitly brought christianity into it, but the fact is you are, and it shows. Also, in our western society, even those of us who have abandoned religion are still imbued with christian values, such as your views on sex (in a similar way that the media has always been used to control people).

i didn't say you were articulate. i said you were more articulate than most (16 year olds).

inject more passion, anon. this makes it more fun.

"So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who believes in an anarchic or lawless government is childish?"

YES!!!! i think he's getting it, folks...

a ship with no captain is destined to hit the glaciers, anon. if history has taught us anything, it's that boats, cars, horses, communities, empires, armies, schools - you name it.

they don't steer themselves & they have always, ALWAYS, perished without leadership.

"As for the inevitable danger of someone watching a virtual porn - are you blissfully unaware of the existance of films whose contents break practically all the laws there are?"

of course not. are you really going to pretend that consumers watch general, non-adult movies for the same reason, and achieving the same level of entertainment, as those who watch pornography??

i suppose there might be one or two porn users in the world who, when they sit in front of the computer or TV screen, don't experience the mesmerizing arousal of the heightened sexual state that pornographers intend - there really might be one or two who watch porn and only notice the filmography, color schemes, and depth of character the "actresses" are able to communicate.

but maybe you'd like to come in off that silly limb you're on here & acknowledge, with me & the rest of the universe, that porn is not only designed to create an altogether different experience - but it truly DOES create a different experience.

or maybe you've walked in & inadvertently caught someone hunched over in the dark, gazing wide-mouthed at the television, rapidly & fervently whipping his hand back & forth over his groin while watching rambo.

probably not. you should really just join me on this point. the idea that people watch porn & non-porn movies for the same reason is just silly.

"Ooh, syntax eh? It's an interesting one. Spend a little more time pointing out minor irrelevent flaws and maybe you can detract the point from your failing argument."

syntax?? hardly.

you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, anon. it wasn't a flaw - you were just unaware that you were using the same (legitimate) method of illustration as i.

just make sure to remember which pair of shoes you have on before you laugh at mine (especially when you're wearing the same ones - it makes you look silly).

"My point, if you'd care to remember, was that you said you weren't trying to imbue negative connotations to the thing by comparing it to Nazis, and then you still compare to other negatives, instead of things just being the way they are. I won't disagree that Nazi's influence the way people think through the media, just that every culture on earth has always done this and always will."

now let's just for a second come to the table seriously & peacefully. we're trading shots - which is fun. no problem. but stop momentarily.

but here you have wrapped up exactly my point, anon. every culture does this. my comparison to the nazi's really wasn't intended to make people feel bad about miss bimbo, simply because of the mention of the word nazi.

my intention is to highlight a red flag - to evoke caution. as you said, every culture on earth uses the media to influence the way people think.

i'm not arguing that this, alone, is a good or bad thing. i'm just calling people to evaluate what, specifically, culture is trying to influence us to think by use of these kinds of tools.

i think it goes hand-in-hand with the proliferation of pornography, especially porn that is dominated by themes that devalue girls. i think we're being conditioned to devalue girls, anon. it's alarming - and potentially very destructive.

i won't draw the link again - but if you consider this from my perspective, can't you see the relationship?

now let's get back to the insults & sucker-punches.

"You have basically been saying that pornography means that little children get traded in car boots. I was saying that before pornography, this has always been happening, so your quest against it is misguided - you're issue is with human behaviour itself."

right, again, anon. my issue is with human behavior itself.

and, as you have acknowledged (and i agree wholeheartedly) - every culture on earth influences people's behavior.

this is exactly why you & i can't afford to lie down & allow culture to train us to behave badly towards one another. porn is just a tool on the belt of a tyrant that would have us all depreciate & devalue girls.

if a carpenter was screwing up my house - and i took away his hammer...

would my effort be misguided?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"essential" is a key word here, anon. essential liberty is not the liberty to possess porn in which children are molested. nor is it the liberty to make & distribute films in which teenagers are abducted, raped & killed.

"Yeah, so you can teach your children about not having any fun, the limits placed on them, what they can and cannot experience, which of their freedoms aren't actually that important, and to adopt your christian (or christian influenced) set of morals. I'll teach mine to be strong moral characters for themselves, who are able to tell right from wrong themselves without being force fed it."

you're starting to sound a little too "my dad can beat up your dad" here, anon. and if ever syntax was being used to twist an argument, it is here.

do i really need to point out your mistakes here? i think you made them on purpose in an effort to be pursuasive.

how will you teach them right from wrong, anon, when your moral code has no standard - except whatever your personal pleasure requires?

i would argue that if you follow the same code from which you live, the product will likely not be "strong moral characters...who are able to tell right from wrong themselves..."

a child who learns to have only fun, has no limits, is ignorant of what he/she can & can't experience, and believes his/her freedoms are all that important -

is a miserable child who will forever be ...a child.

"PORN ISN'T REAL FFS!"

wrong, anon. and this is one of the sharp differences between porn & those movies you cited earlier.

your rant prior to making this statement suggests that we are all in agreement that people who commit sex crimes should go to jail.

wonderful.

here's where we seem to part ways. if you acknowledge that those crimes are jail-worthy, you would believe they are unhealthy for society. if they are unhealthy for society, then we are amazingly st*pid for tolerating things whose only purpose is to feed & encourage those unhealthy influences.

back to your statement. porn has never been so real. in fact, pornographers are finding it necessary to create more real porn (as evidenced by the distribution of a film in which a teen is kidnapped, raped & killed) in order to please their audiences.

in this respect, porn is following the same path as mainstream television. sit coms are giving way to reality shows.

we aren't entertained by things that aren't real anymore.

i'm reminded of another culture that entertained themselves to death, literally.

no, not the nazi's.

the romans filled their stadiums with water & gathered on saturday mornings with their families to watch real naval battles happen. ships floated & people killed each other.

plays didn't cut it, pretend fantasy didn't cut it. they had to make it real.

and rome soon after fell & crumbled.

and so we find ourselves in a similar predicament, needing porn to be real - needing porn to portray the horrible crimes that in the past we saw on the news, reported for their horror - but now we see depicted & displayed as enticing & fun.

well, fun for the rapists, anyway.

"I wouldn't want my daughter to be a porn star, just like I wouldn't want her to be an admin office worker."

i'm going to have to call "bullsh*t" here, anon. i know i can't speak for you. but i find this hard to swallow.

i think there's another reason why people, including ms. taylor rain, herself, says, "well, no one wants their kid to do porn."

let me know if you want the link to see that quote - i'll pm it.

AAHAHAHAHAAHAHA. What? You believe differently - after years of war and the Japanese dive bombed your precious harbour? Then you came in and saved our limey behinds right? You know, you shouldn't base your war history off "Saving Private Ryan" (another film that by your rationale should be banned).

you've definitely missed my point here. here, again, you're leaning toward the "my dad can beat up your dad" tendencies.

i'm just thankful that we haven't always been willing to turn our heads from those who would seek to ram destructive philosohies down our throats (the way porn does). otherwise america would been trampled underfoot (dare i say his name) hitler (in a whisper).

don't be so dramatic. tavington in the patriot caused a lot more trouble for me where you guys are concerned.

it's a joke, anon.

"You like to get bogged down in details, even when you're wrong."

nope. i just don't allow you to distort them so you can mask being wrong.

"It'd be "why not watch a chocolate cake cooking programme while you're on the treadmill and at you about your weight."

see above comments about how the impact of porn and other movies differs - then get back off of that limb.

"I was simplifying it for you, as most people read anarchy as completely lack of structure in a society, which would obviously mean you'd have to farm your own food etc. which isn't the case."

yes, thanks. and i was just reminding you that anarchists only want a lack of structure where their personal pleasure pursuits are concerned. again, people like to make their own rules.

you want the law to ensure your needs are met & the law to disappear so you can pursue your desires without bounds.

sounds familiar - "pay the bills, provide shelter, make sure the fridge is stocked, but don't tell me when to come home or who to hang out with!"

unfortunately some of us never grow out of that mentality. those usually suffer the same fate as the gum-chewing blueberry girl in willy wonka.

but if none of us did, we'd live in a dreadful world, anon.

i guess there will always be those who ensalve themselves to the indulgence of the selfish desires, and those who:

"Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society."

Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Alamanac, 1739

or if we reverse his admonition ...if we don't teach our children those things we will do much to establish misery in their future & crimes in society.

this is why we can't tolerate porn, anon.